Nuclear

[albie]

The folly of throwing more money down the nuclear drain is showing with the cost increases for the likes of Hinckley Point;
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/in-the-back

Years behind schedule, and with massive cost over-runs, this white elephant will be a drag on the energy economy for the foreseeable.
I support public ownership of energy provision, but EDF is a classic example of how not to do it.......all the eggs in the nuclear basket, costs out of control, and technically insolvent without the French government.

The chance to create a new energy economy, based on renewables in public hands, is going to be restricted by the dinosaurs of the legacy industries clinging on beyond all reason......what a waste!

[danumdon]

If i remember rightly was not the overall cost and commissioning of this plant all down to EDF and its investor partners, in lieu of the state buying the energy from the plant at an already fixed price?

So in effect they take on all the costs and risk until the power station starts to produce? then we get artificially inflated energy for the next 25 years or so?

[Sprotyrover]

If i remember rightly was not the overall cost and commissioning of this plant all down to EDF and its investor partners, in lieu of the state buying the energy from the plant at an already fixed price?

So in effect they take on all the costs and risk until the power station starts to produce? then we get artificially inflated energy for the next 25 years or so?

No we Nationalise it. ! And tell the Frogs where to go!

[albie]

DD,

The financing of Hinkley is different to the model proposed for Sizewell.
With Hinkley, an index linked price per unit has been agreed. This is way above the unit cost (3x higher and rising) for real renewables like solar and wind.

Sizewell construction is to be supported by consumers, with a levy on bills.
Those consumers will then pay a premium price, above the renewables market price, for the leccy.
They will also carry the tab for decommissioning costs, down the line.

Because nuclear cannot be stood down in response to demand, then low cost wind producers are paid to turn off their capacity, where the ability to store excess production is not available.

EDF have just announced that they will extend the operation of Heysham and Hartlepool for two years, beyond the designated closure date.
This is probably to do with the delays mounting up at Hinkley.

[danumdon]

So would you say that this country needs the security of a balanced energy supply, taking into consideration that as things stand renewables are not in a position to be our only weapon of choice. Even with the possibility of new battery technology it would never be prudent for us as a nation and with our climate to rely on renewables in totality?

What do you consider, all things being optimal would make up our future energy security strategy?

[glosterred]

The only way for energy security is to have a mix of the lot, nuclear, renewables and dare I say it coal with carbon capture technology incorporated

[SydneyRover]

When economical CCS is invented that is.

[normal rules]

Aren’t Rolls Royce building small modular reactors, and having one online in the uk before the end of this decade?

[ncRover]

“Two old coal-fired power plants have begun generating again as the UK expects to see its coldest night of the year so far.

The plants had been put on standby in case of shortfalls, but started feeding power into the grid this afternoon.

National Grid blamed high demand and a shortage of electricity from other sources.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64879044.amp

[ncRover]

That coal plant in Germany the environmentalists were getting in a flap about had to open because the Germans closed their nuclear plants.

[albie]

The Climate Change Committee have just concluded that cheaper renewables like solar and wind should form the backbone of the implementation strategy to 2035.

The issue with nuclear is what proportion of the energy mix it should take up.
Hinkley will at some point be operational, it is assumed, so no-one is saying that there will be no nuclear.

If you ramp up nuclear to a larger industry than at present, you are looking at long lead times as well as significant sunk costs.
Technological and construction issues can arise, as set out in the Private Eye link in the OP.

The renewables have a short lead time, lower cost per unit produced, and are available with supporting storage solutions, such as flow batteries, off the shelf. More bang for your buck, and much less hassle!

The energy sector is moving to a more decentralised model, and there is a danger of locking in too much reliance on old school mega facilities. The energy security question is now more important than in the recent past, with uranium supply from Russia and the situation at Zap in Ukraine in play.